The Young Political Radical

Thursday, 15 August 2013

Star Trek is a common thing in the homes of many people - three generations of Trekkies and Trekkers now populate the world, from the OTS fans to TNG and now onto the remake fans (which will hopefully spark a new, and not Enterprise television series).

Yeah, Star Trek's Earth is a world where most of the continents were nuked to ash, and what was left as the majority was European and American populations. We already know that humanity went through several major wars prior to the Federation or even Starfleet being formed.

Star Trek fans were given a special delight when, in 1987, Star Trek: The Next Generation launched. Arguably the best Star Trek spin-off show, TNG had a humble and dignified approach to most episodes, especially when comparing to Voyager.

The first episode, Encounter at Far Point Station, gave an insight in to the past of the Federation and humanity which had pretty much been a mystery in TOS, which hinted towards the past but never really dug deeper. Q points out that humanity engaged in a long struggle with itself; drugs and degeneration pretty much hit most of the world; it was a link in with TOS episode Bread and Circuses which showed a not-so-sunny near future for its audiences (with terrorists killing millions with nuclear weapons.

Memory Alpha (the most accurate wiki for Star Trek material) states:

"various parts of Earth were still affected by what became known as the "post-atomic horror." In 2079, one such culture reverted to a state of near-barbarism that followed the credo "[Kill] all the lawyers," and "[Guilty] until proven innocent." (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint") Due to these and other factors, parts of Earth continued to be in – as Captain Jean-Luc Picard put it in 2365 – "chaos" well into the early 22nd century. (TNG: "Up The Long Ladder")"

We admire the Earth of the Star Trek universe for ridding many of the socio-economic matters we suffer today such as poverty, inequality and racism.

From Memory Alpha:

The post-atomic horror gave way to the stirrings of new attempts at establishing various unified world alliances, including the European Hegemony in 2123. (TNG: "Up The Long Ladder") These alliances were eventually instrumental in the establishment of the United Earth Government in 2150. (TNG: "Attached")

"By the early 2100s – less than two generations of the post-atomic horror – humanity was finally able to eliminate most if not all poverty, disease, war and hunger. Along with it, a lot of other things disappeared from humanity, including hopelessness, despair, and cruelty. (TNG: "Time's Arrow, Part II"; Star Trek: First Contact; ENT: "Broken Bow")"

How did this occur? How did humanity manage to get rid of such social diseases?

The majority of the populace outside of Europe and America died. Oh, and genocide was a popular method of ensuring the best stock for humanity.

This is where real world dynamics will bridge with the show:

Memory Alpha reports that 600million were directly killed due to Nuclear Strikes of World War Three.

Then the post-atomic horror "Earth historians to refer to the global turmoil which resulted after the end of the Third World War in 2053. Because the war was a nuclear exchange, large populations of Humans were bombed out of existence, and the survivors were placed in jeopardy by radioactivity, "

Back then, countries such as China weren't the same powerhouse as they are today, so take in to consideration that chances are that China would be one of the first to be hit during a Nuclear war, say 40% of the population was killed in China, that's nearly 600million additional people, bringing the death toll much higher than the show indicates.

Then the nuclear winters - the Johnston Archives has a good article relating to this - would leave about 60% of the population in total completely devastated.

Africa would become a wasteland; it already suffers from low water supplies and millions of deaths from starvation - imagine a nuclear fall out situation where the atmosphere's temperature would rise even higher.

Regions such as the Middle East and Southern Asia would have the same problem.

Why would Europe and America survive above all else? The climate in these continents are mild, and thus an increase in temperature would be more adaptable than else where.

Future generations would struggle to repopulate with radioactive-related deformities and retardation killing many potential generations.

Look at the senior staff from the primary television ships and tally their ethnicity:

Picard - French
Janeway - American
Sisko - American
Arthur - American
Kirk - American

Now, yes they are actors and their characters reflect that, however in the universe it is seemingly mostly European and Americans who are populating the human ships of the federation.

Star Trek has now taught us that we need to wipe out most of the human race, make contact with space elves and generation blast the shit out of anything that is a threat - great diversity and morals, eh?

Saturday, 10 August 2013

From the creators of the 'Bed Room' tax and Boris Johnson's hair comes a brand new innovation aimed at destroying the internet: a porn ban!

Yes, that's an actual thing.

The Conservative Government in the United Kingdom has now set its eyes on Internet porn; choosing to encourage (and likely future forcing) internet service providers to use an opt-out scheme for censoring pornographic materials.

Seeing the clear threat to both personal freedoms and their profit revenues many ISPs have declined to entertain the governments proposals; with much revenue and use of the internet for personal use coming from the 14-30 age range, the providers have chosen a hard stance against the government with many accusing the government of building the frame work for Chinese-style oppression of the widely and freely open information and movement of news on the internet.

David Cameron has stated that the opt-out scheme will affect (for the most part) websites which promote extreme forms of pornography such as staged rape and violent bondage practices.

If you take away the fake staging of such practices then what is left?

Well, a black market of pornography will be created which may not see the need to fake rape and instead may promote the real recording of actual rape; and rather than large multi-million corporations producing bondage porn in a secure environment with fully trained medical staff on call, you may be left with amateur pornographers creating their own version for distribution which can be nothing but bad when such practices involve borderline torture when not produced professionally.

If the war on drugs has taught us anything it's that banning something only promotes the creation of black markets where stock is more than questionable.

Speaking as someone who spent most of his young life tweeting the tweety bird to porn: it's not more damaging than the usual levels of sexual exposure seen on the highstreet or on many television shows.

Sunday, 14 July 2013

With Abu Qatada's deportation running in to the millions as the British state fought against the human rights court of the European Union, we are left with several questions which even the pro-European members of the government would like answers to.

Having been born in the early 90s, I was exposed to the threats of terrorism from Ireland, and then later on in my life the threat of terrorism from the east. As a member of society who believes that the way forward - at current - for democracy is to weed out elements which would seek to take away liberties and the secular freedoms to which we have so grown accustom to is to fight at the ballot boxes and at the debating table to change public opinion, I feel nothing but disgust at the lack of true powers that our state seems to show against the extremist elements of society.

Many would consider it racist to advocate the deportation of residents of our nation - who having not been born here or having no roots here - as a weapon against our society becoming further divided by threats to safety and security.

I do not like Islamist preaches and I will place that card firmly on the table. Do I dislike Muslims? No.

See, like myself - a Christian raised then turned Atheist - many Muslims enjoy the freedoms of our nation and do not wish to disrupt the way of life we have fought for. We're able to engage in sexual activities without being stoned to death; we may drink alcohol, and engage in cultural activities such as festivals and artistic ventures. We may wish for a better society however what we have at current is much better than what was in place before and we should go forward with liberalism, not backwards.

Freedom-of-speech is indeed important. It allows one to comment on this blog post. It gives fair chance for all to spread truth over lies.

There is a very delicate line which separates freedom-of-speech from hatred. The difference of the wish to change immigration laws for economic reasons, and the wish to change them for the dislike or hatred of foreign elements.

I do not dislike Muslims however I will never support hard-pressing religious regimes, regardless of this being a multi-cultural nation. My culture comes first. The Scottish and British culture. The culture that my family died for, and the culture that we are slowly seeing being destroyed and put in to question by allowing a voice to the most extreme of views.

Often people ask why I pick on the Muslims in these articles, and the answer is quite simple: It's a common theme in media that many can relate to, it gives example to what I am discussing.

If those who have been given the privilege of being given Asylum in this nation seem fit to hold up signs such as 'death to the west' or 'burn all who oppose' then, in all honesty, they can go back to where they came from and perhaps then they will be more grateful for living in the west where we have maintained a relative peace and high standard of life for quite some time due to allowing science to flourish and preventing archaic principles from disrupting our progression as continental force.

Nations very seldom retain their peace through peaceful actions. Peace is maintained by forcefully removing those who threaten the lives of the majority, and quite frankly we need to remind ourselves of that.

It's politically incorrect, which is a sign that there is logic behind it.

Do not mistake racism for the will to defend your culture.

The culture of a sovereign nation should always have priority over those who enter later in the national progression.

Begin to arrest those who advocating mass murder and genocide.

Deport foreign elements that wish to force their own agenda on our nation.

Stop the view that any defiance against foreign affairs over our nation are racist.

Dear Anonymous & Members of Parliament, officials and citizens of the European Union,

Over these last few weeks Edward Snowden - a true patriot to both the United States of America and western civilisation - has exposed the tactics of the NSA against not only United States citizens but also espionage against European Union nations and, indeed, the European Union itself.

As sovereign nations within the EU, we come together to push forward our ideals for stronger and freer nations, independent from the need to rely on the rest of the world for our democratic needs, and as European nations - despite sometimes disagreeing - we all want the same vision of a democratic and free world for our children. As a peaceful entity in the world, we present no threat to the United States in a military capacity, and while we may pose a threat to the economic interests of the 1% in America, our actions have been to serve the tens of nations of our congress which rely on the European Union to serve as a collective voice in the world.

Over the last weeks the trust to-which we have shown in the European Union has been broken.

To discover that European nations have been under surveillance by the United States of America should have prompted immediate action by the European Parliament, including a blockade on trade with the United States Government and a complete re-assessment of the security protocols in place to protect against such actions against the sovereignty of our nation-states.

This did not happen.

Instead the European Union and Parliament were submissive. I assume this is due to size and power of the United States and its influence over the world. Bullies are allowed to flourish when they receive no punishment, and as such the United States will undoubtedly continue their illegal operations against our citizens, politicians and assets.

I have nothing but love for the American people however American politics are international politics - America has gone far beyond a sovereign state and now begins to resemble an imperial force with the intention of forcing their ideals on the world through militant and illegal tactics.

America will continue to grow and expand unless the world begins to say 'no more'.

The European Union may not be able to match the United States in economy however we surpass them in morals - in Europe, we no longer believe that religion and politics should often go together; we no longer feel that it is political suicide to support gay and equal rights for all citizens; and as a continent, we have the potential to serve the world with a great deal of good through science and culture. We must use our strengths and begin to awaken our voice against the United States of America. We must say 'no more'.

What has happened to the President of Bolivia is unacceptable.

As sovereign nations, we have the right to forge our own opinions and decisions over international matters without strings being attached to our politicians. In the older days of politics, when politicians still had spines, they would have allowed the President of Bolivia to land and continue his flight regardless of the presence of Edward Snowden being true or otherwise.

The revelations from Edward Snowden effect the half billion citizens within the European Union as many online assets are held within the United States; they have a monopoly on the internet, and the internet should never be the sole responsibility of any one power.

He stood out for freedom, and in return we punished him.

Now we must look to nations such as Bolivia, which we often too readily criticize, for how our morals should be set. An absolute disgrace for Europe and the European Union.

I thought we were better than this. I thought we were a continent of freedom and liberty. Instead, we are become sheep.

I look to Anonymous, as one of the only true voices to the 99%, to do what must be done to crush the illegal destruction of our freedom.

The hope of the world's citizens is with you Anonymous, I hope you carry them well and just.

Sunday, 30 June 2013

Star Trek is a common thing in the homes of many people - three generations of Trekkies and Trekkers now populate the world, from the OTS fans to TNG and now onto the remake fans (which will hopefully spark a new, and not Enterprise television series).

Yeah, Star Trek's Earth is a world where most of the continents were nuked to ash, and what was left as the majority was European and American populations. We already know that humanity went through several major wars prior to the Federation or even Starfleet being formed.

Star Trek fans were given a special delight when, in 1987, Star Trek: The Next Generation launched. Arguably the best Star Trek spin-off show, TNG had a humble and dignified approach to most episodes, especially when comparing to Voyager.

The first episode, Encounter at Far Point Station, gave an insight in to the past of the Federation and humanity which had pretty much been a mystery in TOS, which hinted towards the past but never really dug deeper. Q points out that humanity engaged in a long struggle with itself; drugs and degeneration pretty much hit most of the world; it was a link in with TOS episode Bread and Circuses which showed a not-so-sunny near future for its audiences (with terrorists killing millions with nuclear weapons.

Memory Alpha (the most accurate wiki for Star Trek material) states:

"various parts of Earth were still affected by what became known as the "post-atomic horror." In 2079, one such culture reverted to a state of near-barbarism that followed the credo "[Kill] all the lawyers," and "[Guilty] until proven innocent." (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint") Due to these and other factors, parts of Earth continued to be in – as Captain Jean-Luc Picard put it in 2365 – "chaos" well into the early 22nd century. (TNG: "Up The Long Ladder")"

We admire the Earth of the Star Trek universe for ridding many of the socio-economic matters we suffer today such as poverty, inequality and racism.

From Memory Alpha:

The post-atomic horror gave way to the stirrings of new attempts at establishing various unified world alliances, including the European Hegemony in 2123. (TNG: "Up The Long Ladder") These alliances were eventually instrumental in the establishment of the United Earth Government in 2150. (TNG: "Attached")

"By the early 2100s – less than two generations of the post-atomic horror – humanity was finally able to eliminate most if not all poverty, disease, war and hunger. Along with it, a lot of other things disappeared from humanity, including hopelessness, despair, and cruelty. (TNG: "Time's Arrow, Part II"; Star Trek: First Contact; ENT: "Broken Bow")"

How did this occur? How did humanity manage to get rid of such social diseases?

The majority of the populace outside of Europe and America died. Oh, and genocide was a popular method of ensuring the best stock for humanity.

This is where real world dynamics will bridge with the show:

Memory Alpha reports that 600million were directly killed due to Nuclear Strikes of World War Three.

Then the post-atomic horror "Earth historians to refer to the global turmoil which resulted after the end of the Third World War in 2053. Because the war was a nuclear exchange, large populations of Humans were bombed out of existence, and the survivors were placed in jeopardy by radioactivity, "

Back then, countries such as China weren't the same powerhouse as they are today, so take in to consideration that chances are that China would be one of the first to be hit during a Nuclear war, say 40% of the population was killed in China, that's nearly 600million additional people, bringing the death toll much higher than the show indicates.

Then the nuclear winters - the Johnston Archives has a good article relating to this - would leave about 60% of the population in total completely devastated.

Africa would become a wasteland; it already suffers from low water supplies and millions of deaths from starvation - imagine a nuclear fall out situation where the atmosphere's temperature would rise even higher.

Regions such as the Middle East and Southern Asia would have the same problem.

Why would Europe and America survive above all else? The climate in these continents are mild, and thus an increase in temperature would be more adaptable than else where.

Future generations would struggle to repopulate with radioactive-related deformities and retardation killing many potential generations.

Look at the senior staff from the primary television ships and tally their ethnicity:

Picard - French
Janeway - American
Sisko - American
Arthur - American
Kirk - American

Now, yes they are actors and their characters reflect that, however in the universe it is seemingly mostly European and Americans who are populating the human ships of the federation.

Star Trek has now taught us that we need to wipe out most of the human race, make contact with space elves and generation blast the shit out of anything that is a threat - great diversity and morals, eh?